See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326264312

Performance of Rapid Impact Compaction as a Middle-Deep Ground

Improvement Technique

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 1,972

2 authors:

Bashar Tarawneh Yasser Hakam

University of Jordan 4 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   
42 PUBLICATIONS   369 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance of Thermoplastic Pipes under Deep Burial View project

Inspection of Highway Culverts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bashar Tarawneh on 09 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Performance of Rapid Impact Compaction as a Middle-Deep Ground Improvement
Technique

Bashar Tarawneh, Ph.D, P.E

Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan, [email protected]

Yasser Hakam
Technical and Business Development Manager, Menard Vibro Middle East, Dubai, UAE

ABSTRACT: Rapid Impact Compaction ( RIC) is a modern dynamic compaction technique mostly used to compact sandy
soils, where silt and clay contents are little. The device uses the piling hammer technology to increase the bearing
capacity and reduce the potential settlement of soils. The RIC device uses "controlled impact compaction" of the ground
using a 9-ton hammer dropped from height between 0.3 m to 1.2 m onto a 1.5 m diameter steel patent foot. To evaluate
the performance of this technique, the results of ground improvement work for a project site using RIC is presented in this
paper. In the project site, a loose to very loose fine to medium sand was encountered at a depth ranging from 1.0m to
4.0m below the ground level. Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) were carried out before and after ground improvement. It
was shown that soil was improved to a depth of about 5.0m below the ground level. CPT tip resistance was significantly
increased post ground improvement work. This study demonstrates the successful application of the RIC for middle-deep
improvement and compaction of the ground. Foundation design criteria were achieved in all site post RIC work.

KEYWORDS: Rapid Impact Compaction, Ground Improvement, CPT

1 INTRODUCTION

The RIC system uses "controlled impact compaction" of the

ground using a 9-ton hammer dropped from height between 0.3
m to 1.2 m onto a 1.5 m diameter steel patent foot delivering
about 26,487 to 105,948 Joules of energy per drop. RIC can be
used to densify loose soils down to a depth of about 4 m to 6m.
RIC consists of an excavator-mounted hydraulic pile-driving
hammer striking a circular plate (patent foot) that rests on the
ground. The tamper typically strikes the plate at a rate of 40 to
60 blows per minute. Figures 1A and B show rapid impact
compactor and impact foot with driving cap.
Figure 1B. Impact Foot with Driving Cap

The compaction sequence is designed to work from the

outside in, so that compaction of the lower zone soils occurs
first followed by compaction of the upper zone. Data
monitoring during the compaction process and the online
display in the operator’s cab enables compaction control, an
economic application of the compaction tool, and a work
integrated quality control. The total impact depth of the impact
foot, the number of blows, and the final settlement of the impact
foot after a blow define the stopping criteria.

The way in which RIC improves the ground is a “top-down”

Figure 1A. Rapid Impact Compactor process, compared to Dynamic Compaction (DC) which is a
“bottom-up” process. The first few blows in rapid impact
Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) is considered an innovative compaction create a dense plug of soil immediately beneath the
dynamic compaction device mainly used to compact sandy soils, compaction foot. Further blows advance this plug deeper, which
where silt and clay contents are low. RIC closes the gap compacts soil in a deeper layer. This process progresses until
between the surface compaction methods (e.g. roller little further penetration of the compaction foot can be achieved
compaction) and the deep compaction methods (e.g. deep with increasing blows (Serridge and Synac 2006).
dynamic compaction) and permitting a middle-deep
improvement of the ground. RIC has been used to treat a range 2 STUDY AREA
of fills of a generally granular nature (Watts and Charles 1993)
and some natural sandy and silty soils (Braithwaite and Preez In this paper, RIC is used as a middle deep ground
1997). improvement technique in a project site near Dubai, UAE to
improve the soil bearing capacity and reduce the settlements.

- 2623 -
 Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 2017

The project site is a development to construct Villas. Each Villa which is about (35,000 m2). One Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
is built on about 500 m2. In some areas of the project site, a was carried out at each villa location before the commencement
loose to very loose fine to medium sand layer is encountered at of the compaction to evaluate the soil conditions and to
a depth ranging from 1.0m to 4.0m below the ground level. determine the needed degree of compaction to meet the design
Cohesive soil was not encountered in the project area. Water criteria.
table was encountered at a depth of 0.5m to 2.0m below the
ground level. Preliminary compaction trials are crucial to any extensive
RIC works to provide the designer with the necessary
The designer proposed the bottom of footings (B.O.F) to be information to allow refinement of the compaction procedure.
constructed at 1.0m below the ground level. The design criteria, Two Villa locations were used as a trial area to establish a
for the foundation, are to use square footing (2.5m by 2.5 m), compaction design criteria. Moreover, as the main RIC works
200 kPa bearing pressure, and settlement shall not to exceed are proceeding, ongoing monitoring and testing is necessary to
25mm in order to minimize differential settlement. ensure that the appropriate amount of energy is being
It’s proposed to use Schmertmann (1978) method to carry transferred to the soil and that performance requirements are
out the settlement calculations. The bearing capacity and being met. The compaction trial is important for the evaluation
settlement criteria could not be met based on the existing soil of ground response. The optimal number of blows per pass is
conditions. Therefore, a ground improvement is needed to meet typically taken as the value beyond which continued blows
the foundation design criteria. produce negligible further penetration of the compaction foot.

Considering the soil profile of loose to very loose fine to The process of compaction started by using a 6m grid then
medium sand, three soil improvement techniques were compacting a 3m grid in order to allow for deep improvement.
considered namely: Vibrocompaction, Dynamic Compaction, Figure 2 shows the sequence of the compaction.
and Rapid Impact Compaction. Those methods were considered
because they are suitable for granular soil and available in the
local market.

Vibro-Compaction is effective in improving the relative

density of granular soils with suitable gradations and limited
fines contents (not more than 5%). A vibroflot is penetrated to
the required design depth, assisted by water jetting from the
nose cone. Upon reaching design depth water jetting is reduced
before the vibroflot is slowly extracted, with pauses at regular
intervals to ensure satisfactory levels of compaction are
achieved at each depth. The vibroflot is withdrawn back to the
surface where a zone of compacted ground is formed around the
insertion point. In this method, the soil particles are forced into
a denser configuration by the generation of radial vibrations,
resulting in a soil matrix with greater density and increased
mechanical properties (shear strength, stiffness, and bearing
capacity).
Figure 2. Compaction Grid
DC was first popularized by Menard and Broise (1975) and
has become a well-known ground improvement technique due
to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and the considerable depth
it affects. With this technique, the ground can be repeatedly Compaction was delivered at each point until one of the
impacted by a large pounder weighing typically 6 to 40 tons, following criteria was satisfied:
which is dropped onto predetermined grid points on the ground
surface in free fall from a height varying from 10 to 40 m to A. Maximum number of blows = 60
increase the degree of compaction and bearing capacity and B. Maximum foot travel = 800 mm
decrease collapsibility of loess within a specified depth of C. Minimum foot settlement = 8 mm
improvement (Lutenegger 1986).
Compaction of the 6m and 3m grid is considered one pass
The Vibrocompaction is not suitable, for the existing soil (sequence 1 and 2). One CPT test per villas was carried out
profile, because the fine content of the existing soil is more than after each pass. The project design criteria (settlement and
5%. The dynamic compaction is not suitable for this project due bearing pressure) were met after the third pass. After
to nearby existing structures which may be damaged due to completing the trial area, It’s concluded that three passes are
vibrations. RIC is a productive technique, cost effective, and a required using the above mentioned compaction criteria.
less time consuming method when compared to the other two
methods (Tarawneh and Matraji (2014). The sequence of the RIC works involved excavation to
foundation level, pre-treatment CPT testing, first pass of RIC,
leveling, second pass of RIC, leveling, third pass of RIC,
3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING RIC leveling, level survey, and finally post treatment testing.
Considering the cost and the schedule, it was concluded that 4 POST GROUND IMPROVEMENT TESTING
performing RIC using the proposed design criteria is the
optimum alternative. Among the evaluated soil improvement Testing is necessary to assure that appropriate amount of
techniques, RIC was selected because it reduced the cost and energy is being transferred to the soil and that performance
time when compared to Vibro compaction, and DC. The RIC requirements are being met. The degree of compaction is
work was finished within three weeks for whole project area

- 2624 -
 Technical Committee 211 / Comité technique 211

evaluated by comparing the pre and post CPTs and calculating less than 25mm for all project area when the size of the footing
the expected settlements. is (2.5m by 2.5m) and the bearing pressure is 200 kPa.

Following the RIC work, one CPT per villa was carried out 5 CONCLUSIONS
to provide post-treatment evaluation. The post-treatment CPTs
were advanced, near to pre-treatment CPTs, to depths of about The results of ground improvement work project presented
5.5 meters approximately two days after the RIC treatment to in this paper benefited from RIC, essentially by meeting the
allow for dissipation of pore water pressure. The corresponding foundation design criteria, reducing foundation system costs
post-treatment CPTs indicate an increase in the tip resistance and construction time. Results of the field pre and post
within these same depths. Figure 3 shows the tip resistance for improvement testing indicate improvement of soil to depths of
the pre-improvement, post 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Pass. It can be noted about to 5.0 meters below the ground level. Settlements
that the first pass energy was consumed to break the existing calculations showed that the RIC method reduced the expected
hard layer (crust) at the top while the 2nd and 3rd passes settlement. RIC is considered to have less cost and more
improved the soil. productivity when compared to other ground improvement
techniques such as Dynamic Compaction and Vibrocompaction.
It also, has less vibration effect when compared to dynamic
Tip Resistance (MPa) compaction. No known damage to nearby utilities has occurred
0.0 at the time RIC was performed.

0.5
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1.0 The authors would like acknowledge the collaboration and

assistance of Menard Vibro Middle East in Dubai, UAE during
the conduct of this study.
1.5

9 REFERENCES
2.0 Braithwaite E.J. and Du Preez R.W. 1997. Rapid impact compaction in
southern Africa. Proceedings of the Conference on Geology for
Engineering, Urban Planning and the Environment. South African
2.5 Institute of Engineering Geologists, 13-14 November 1997.

Lutenegger A.J. 1986. Dynamic compaction in friable loess. J. Geotech.

Eng., 112(6), 663–667.
3.0
Menard L. and Broise, Y. 1975. Theoretical and practical aspects of
dynamic consolidation. Geotechnique, 25 (1), 3–18.
3.5
Schmertmann J. H., Hartman J. P. and Brown P. R. 1978. Improved
Strain Influence Factor Diagrams. J. Geotech. Eng., 104 (No. GT8),
1131-1135.
4.0
Serridge C.J. and Synac O. 2006. Application of the Rapid Impact
Compaction (RIC) Technique for Risk Mitigation in Problematic
4.5 Soils, IAEG 2006 Paper No.294

Tarawneh B. and Matraji M. 2014. Ground improvement using rapid

impact compaction: case study in Dubai, UAE. Građevinar, 66(11.),
5.0 1007-1014

5.5
0 10 20 30
1st Pass 2nd
3rd Pass Pre-Improvement

Figure 3: Tip Resistance for the Pre and post

Improvement Passes

Figure 3 shows a loose layer approximately between 2.5m to

4.5m below the ground level. The goal is to improve this layer
by increasing the tip resistance so the foundation design criteria
can be met. It’s clear that the tip resistance values were
significantly increased approximately between the depths of
1.0m to 5.0m below the ground.

Settlement calculations were carried out using the method

proposed by Schmertmann et al. (1978). Settlement values were

- 2625 -
 - 2626 -

View publication stats